November 10, 2008

Given the limitations of Oliver Stone’s biopic about George W. Bush (modest budget, rushed production, lack of memoirs by the officials who started the Iraq War, and Stone’s own fading powers), “W.” turns out better than expected.

Anchored by another charismatic performance by Josh Brolin (the hunter turned hunted protagonist of “No Country for Old Men”), this tragicomedy of regression to the mean offers a plausible depiction of the President’s resentful yet admiring relationship with his imposing father, and the complicated ways that set the stage for the 2003 Iraq invasion. Brolin has emerged recently as such an enjoyable leading man to watch that he makes spending 129 minutes with George W. Bush fun.

The historical accuracy of Stone’s films has been improving since their nadir with the infuriating but stylistically dazzling “JFK” in 1991. Unfortunately, as the older, wiser Stone has gotten more honest, his aesthetic bravura has dwindled. ... The great majority of the screenplay, though, strikes me as on solid ground, historically and psychologically. ...

It has not been a success with the critics, who are annoyed that it doesn’t condemn conservatism as inherently evil. Indeed, Stone’s depiction of George H.W. Bush as an old-fashion prudent conservative is downright hagiographic. ...

It’s unfortunate that Freud’s silly theories have discredited all psychological analyses based on nuclear family dynamics, because they can sometimes explain much about politicians. The ambitions of both Winston Churchill and Barack Obama, for example, were fired by political fathers who ignored their sons on the way up, then failed ignominiously.

George W. Bush’s Poppy Problem was the opposite of Obama’s: his father was an all around pretty good guy. As Stone commented, “Forty years is a long time to wait when your father is better at sports, politics, oil, money, diplomacy, and even academics than you are.”

Overall, I found "W" tedious because the story is so familiar and Stone added very little to it. He was not as tendentious as he might have been, though he does like to show the president talking with his mouth full, sitting on the toilet, and lounging in his jockey shorts. (Did Stone research the boxers vs. briefs question?) Brolin gave a fine performance although in key ways he doesn't resemble Bush; unlike the President, Brolin has a large head and full lips, and he is unable to quite capture Bush's baffled, in-over-his-head expression. The best performance was by Richard Dreyfus, who was dead-on as Cheney. Also, Dennis Boutsikaris was excellent as Wolfowitz. Thandie Newton captured the teacher's pet quality of Condoleezza, though she could have used a dental prosthetic to capture that distinctive overbite. Though the resemblance was good, Elizabeth Banks seemed too bright and perky for the robotic Laura. The too-thin Scott Glenn was poorly cast as Rumsfeld; he lacked Rummy's robust, swaggering quality. I guess one of the things wrong with a movie like this is that you spend half your time trying to decide whether or not each actor is convincing in his or her role.

It has not been a success with the critics, who are annoyed that it doesn’t condemn conservatism as inherently evil. Indeed, Stone’s depiction of George H.W. Bush as an old-fashion prudent conservative is downright hagiographic.

This was merely opportunistic of Stone to "rehabilitate" H. W. for the purpose of comparing W. unfavorably to him. Liberals have been doing that for a century now:

I found the film workmanlike and entertaining, but not compelling as a human drama. Stone would have had to manufacture more personal vignettes than the historical record provides to make it so.

Bush on the toilet, clearly manufactured, was gratuitous. Condi and Rumsfeld were lacking, the latter being perhaps the most compelling real participant in the neocon fiasco, and he was not captured in his vainglory. Powell also seemed less affable than imagined.

Mini-spoiler alert:

The scene was wonderful where the architects are sitting in the briefing room and Bush asks "Who was supposed to be in charge of this!?!" Again though, manufactured. Also, H.W. was great--and reminded me of what the republicans used to be made of--and the Horton ad, which I had never seen, was something to behold in its political alchemy. It calcifies what a punter McCain was for ignoring the Reverend's bigotry.

The big problem with the film is that W. just isn't that interesting and an authentic rendering of him is going to be a bit boring. Having said that, there are several clever scenes that illuminate his personality. Per your wife's recommendation, I just finished the new Clinton biography. It left me with a more positive view of him and the movie would be fantastic, possibly x rated but a hoot.

I haven't seen the movie (and probably won't), but if the "toilet scene" involves Bush conferring with aides while seated on the toilet, then this is lifted from the life of Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was known to do this, allegedly to throw people off balance. They would be made so uncomfortable in this circumstance that they'd agree to anything just to get out of there.

I'm not an Oliver Stone fan, but I thought his portrayal of Nixon was -- for him -- an above average effort. I suspect that when you dig a little, Nixon is just a more interesting personality than Bush.

I too look forward to Stone's next movie project, i.e. the blockbuster "O". A long, boring biopic in which key "facts" are based almost entirely on paranoid fantasies found in books authored by O's sworn enemies.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.